2009 Election/Politics thread Part 1

[ProvoAnC]

I agree that it's not a huge number. But killing terrorists is not the only thing that happens to soldiers in Iraq. I'd think having their buddies maimed and killed in front of them or accidentally maiming and killing civillians is much more likely to cause a returning soldier mental distress than shooting

agreed

Beardy McTowelhead in his face.

classic! I'm stealing it

[Teal]

Well the Messiah is closing Gitmo. Let the pussification begin!

Nothing says Freedom like gitmo! I'm glad they're closing that embarrassment. If these people are guilty of something, do it on American soil.

So you want a f***in terrorist to have due process? That's so moronic, it really doesn't deserve justification, but I just can't help but gawk at the insanity on display.

[Teal]

The problem with Gitmo is that it's a f***in gulag. You get to stay as long as the military says, with secret evidence and other Soviet-style regulations. And we've stuck people there and in other secret prisons who are innocent and happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

It isn't that these people should be hugged or let go immediately. It's that the process in place does not work. There needs to be more transparency. It's the very secrecy of it that turned the public against the concept. Regardless of whether someone is a US citizen, it is not American to support detaining someone indefinitely without giving them a fair trial. It is impossible for that to happen when alleged combatants are being tried by US military personnel and often do not have access to the evidence being used against them.

You're right. I say we just shoot the f***ers on sight.

[JackB1]

I agree that it's not a huge number. But killing terrorists is not the only thing that happens to soldiers in Iraq. I'd think having their buddies maimed and killed in front of them or accidentally maiming and killing civillians is much more likely to cause a returning soldier mental distress than shooting

agreed

I never said it was a "huge" number. JackD used that word. I said "many". I even quoted and linked to actual statistics. Go back and read my post. Even 25% (and that's a conservative estimate) of the hundreds of thousands of returning soldiers is a pretty large number. My point was that Bush did UNNECESARY long term damage to our soldiers and also thousands of Iraqi civilians whose only crime was being born there. Most people forget that Iraq was not "terrorist central" until after we invaded there and set up bases.

If you (Provo) and JackD want to debate the level of physical, mental and other damages caused by war and play it down as part of the deal and what they signed up for, that's your business, but that wasn't my intent. I understand why you want to defend what the military does. I am debating the WAY in which Bush misused the military in Iraq and how it is an unforgivable crime of immense proportions.

[JackB1]

Well the Messiah is closing Gitmo. Let the pussification begin!

Nothing says Freedom like gitmo! I'm glad they're closing that embarrassment. If these people are guilty of something, do it on American soil.

So you want a f***in terrorist to have due process? That's so moronic, it really doesn't deserve justification, but I just can't help but gawk at the insanity on display.

You are assuming 100% of all those captured and held in Gitmo are guilty of terrorism.

[Teal]

Nothing says Freedom like gitmo! I'm glad they're closing that embarrassment. If these people are guilty of something, do it on American soil.

So you want a f***in terrorist to have due process? That's so moronic, it really doesn't deserve justification, but I just can't help but gawk at the insanity on display.

You are assuming 100% of all those captured and held in Gitmo are guilty of terrorism.

They are guilty of being enemy combatants, and have no business being in anything but military tribunals.

[greggsand]

Well the Messiah is closing Gitmo. Let the pussification begin!

Nothing says Freedom like gitmo! I'm glad they're closing that embarrassment. If these people are guilty of something, do it on American soil.

So you want a f***in terrorist to have due process? That's so moronic, it really doesn't deserve justification, but I just can't help but gawk at the insanity on display.

Are these terrorists? How do you know? Haven't we prosecuted other terrorist in the past?(in US courts nonetheless)?? You realize a lot of these are being held pending a trial right? GAWK!

[JackB1]

I know JackB1 means well and I respect his passion. He just has no clue about the type of person that volunteers to go defend this country and our cities. Hell, less than 1 percent of 297 million Americans are in active duty military or the reserves.

That's just the point Jack. They weren't DEFENDING anything. You have to be attacked or threatened first in order to defend. We weren't attacked by Iraq. I have no problem with the military "defending our country". We were lied to as a country about WMD's that somehow evaporated into thin air. We were also lied to about how long the Iraq mission was supposed to last ("a month or so, the most"). We were lied to about Sadam having something to do with 9/11. The list goes on and on.

[fsquid]

Sorry, I don't think closing down Guantanamo Bay and moving the enemy combatants here is going to do a damn thing to protect the nation. He's gonna put them in the civilian court system to be tried. Here's the f'ed up part about, information received on the battlefield won't be admissible. As for witnesses, are we supposed to yank people out of theater to testify? No. They'll be released and, if recent headlines are any indicator, will be BACK on the battlefield fighting, and possibly killing our men and women.

There's a damn reason dirtbags such as these were never tried this way. They're NOT citizens of the United States. Am I to assume many of you think Obama, with no executive experience, no military experience, no diplomatic experience, and hell, limited experience all together is smarter than ALLLLL of those people that came before him since the founding of the country?

[JackB1]

So you want a f***in terrorist to have due process? That's so moronic, it really doesn't deserve justification, but I just can't help but gawk at the insanity on display.

You are assuming 100% of all those captured and held in Gitmo are guilty of terrorism.

They are guilty of being enemy combatants, and have no business being in anything but military tribunals.

Boy, you make an awful lot of assumptions. What if you applied this same theory to our own legal system?

[Brando70]

Sorry, I don't think closing down Guantanamo Bay and moving the enemy combatants here is going to do a damn thing to protect the nation. He's gonna put them in the civilian court system to be tried. Here's the f'ed up part about, information received on the battlefield won't be admissible. As for witnesses, are we supposed to yank people out of theater to testify? No. They'll be released and, if recent headlines are any indicator, will be BACK on the battlefield fighting, and possibly killing our men and women.

There's a damn reason dirtbags such as these were never tried this way. They're NOT citizens of the United States. Am I to assume many of you think Obama, with no executive experience, no military experience, no diplomatic experience, and hell, limited experience all together is smarter than ALLLLL of those people that came before him since the founding of the country?

Nothing has been decided yet except to close Gitmo a year from now. Obama has asked his advisers to review the procedures and develop new ones. Some of the prisoners may still be tried in military tribunals, but with new rules.

The other thing is the absolute assumption they are guilty. The fact that some have already been released disproves that. The part that shows why the process fails is that some who were found not guilty were still incarcerated for significant amounts of time. It's a flawed process.

[bdoughty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtFwS2W3ITI

Can't, can't change anything. The dudes expression at the end is priceless.

[Jared]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtFwS2W3ITI

Can't, can't change anything. The dudes expression at the end is priceless.

If you're really looking for a report regarding the predicted economic impact of Obama's plan (and it's unclear as to whether the guy in the video just hasn't done the predictions, or can't predict anything...seems like a right-wing sound-byte video...), then you can look here to start:

The job impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan

Bon Appetit.

[bdoughty]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtFwS2W3ITI

Can't, can't change anything. The dudes expression at the end is priceless.

If you're really looking for a report regarding the predicted economic impact of Obama's plan (and it's unclear as to whether the guy in the video just hasn't done the predictions, or can't predict anything...seems like a right-wing sound-byte video...), then you can look here to start:

The job impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan

Bon Appetit.

No, I just thought it was a funny video and the look was priceless. I have read up on the plan. No need for me to click on a link from a url that looks like something Jack Bauer would use to store US intelligence on.

[RobVarak]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtFwS2W3ITI

Can't, can't change anything. The dudes expression at the end is priceless.

If you're really looking for a report regarding the predicted economic impact of Obama's plan (and it's unclear as to whether the guy in the video just hasn't done the predictions, or can't predict anything...seems like a right-wing sound-byte video...), then you can look here to start:

The job impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan

Bon Appetit.

You'll pardon my skepticism at reading a report from the plannners about how well the plan will work out.

This is my second favorite report of the month, following just behind the Obama transition team report clearing Obama of any wrongdoing in the Blagojevich affair.

The pencil pushers at the CBO are somewhat less...full of s***.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 03980.html

[Teal]

You are assuming 100% of all those captured and held in Gitmo are guilty of terrorism.

They are guilty of being enemy combatants, and have no business being in anything but military tribunals.

Boy, you make an awful lot of assumptions. What if you applied this same theory to our own legal system?

I don't have to. Those assholes don't belong in our own legal system. They have no rights as American citizens; they AREN'T American citizens, for cryin' out loud. But to hell with that-let's treat them BETTER than some US citizens, despite the fact that at least SOME of them have KILLED US citizens. Let's let the ACLU free every gawdamned one of 'em and issue a feckin' apology, give 'em all a house and a car, and shovel money stolen from rich people into their pockets-hell, everybody else who doesn't deserve it is about to get it anyway.

I find it unsurprising, yet amazing that the guy spends his first day in office completely ignoring the financial crisis, and instead just panders to the looniest of his base. Centrist, my ass.

[fsquid]

Well the Messiah is closing Gitmo. Let the pussification begin!

or as it is known elsewhere "compliance with internationally recognised law, compliance with sections 1 and 3 of the Geneva Convention, and the closure of a facility which was described by the head of the United Kingdom legal system as a 'shocking affront to democracy'" - and remember that British troops are there as well, so it isn't like calling it in from the sideline.

And that's without the well-proven torture, sleep deprivation etc.

These guys are neither "uniformed enemy combatants" nor "innocent civilians." As such, they have no standing under the Geneva Conventions or established international law. The laws of international warfare were largely established by westerners to keep war a fair fight. Soldiers wear uniforms so you can distinguish them from the innocent civilians, who don't. These guys aren't interested in fighting fair. We made the decision unilaterally to extend to these guys the protections which the Geneva Conventions afford to uniformed enemy combatants. That was a mistake, too. We did it because we assumed that if we did it for them, then they would extend the same treatment to our soldiers who were captured. How well did that work?

[Feanor]

Sorry, I don't think closing down Guantanamo Bay and moving the enemy combatants here is going to do a damn thing to protect the nation. He's gonna put them in the civilian court system to be tried. Here's the f'ed up part about, information received on the battlefield won't be admissible. As for witnesses, are we supposed to yank people out of theater to testify? No. They'll be released and, if recent headlines are any indicator, will be BACK on the battlefield fighting, and possibly killing our men and women.

There's a damn reason dirtbags such as these were never tried this way. They're NOT citizens of the United States. Am I to assume many of you think Obama, with no executive experience, no military experience, no diplomatic experience, and hell, limited experience all together is smarter than ALLLLL of those people that came before him since the founding of the country?

From what I've read the ones that aren't just released (420 have already been released under Bush) aren't necessarily going to be tried in civilian court, they might still be tried under the current military tribunal system or in a to-be-developed legal system that would mark a hybrid of the two.

[Feanor]

As such, they have no standing under the Geneva Conventions or established international law.

Again, the Supreme Court disagrees.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/29/washi ... cotus.html

In an important part of the ruling, the court held that a provision of the Geneva Conventions known as Common Article 3 applies to the Guantanamo detainees and is enforceable in federal court for their protection.

[greggsand]

Am I to assume many of you think Obama, with no executive experience, no military experience, no diplomatic experience, and hell, limited experience all together is smarter than ALLLLL of those people that came before him since the founding of the country?

You could ask that same with question as to why Gitmo was created in the first place? Just replace Obama with Bush (expect bush was in the national guard for a week).

Unless you're saying George Washington drew-up the gitmo blue-print.

[bdoughty]

Unless you're saying George Washington drew-up the gitmo blue-print.

Bad example above but good for a history lesson. Washington and Obama would have been in complete agreement on this one. George was very much against any kind of torture.


"Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause... for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country."
-- George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775


I will lose my uber conservative card on this one but torture rarely produces results, especially when you are dealing with extremists who place their cause over their own life. To me it just drags us down to their level.

[Brando70]

Bad example above but good for a history lesson. Washington and Obama would have been in complete agreement on this one. George was very much against any kind of torture.


"Should any American soldier be so base and infamous as to injure any [prisoner]. . . I do most earnestly enjoin you to bring him to such severe and exemplary punishment as the enormity of the crime may require. Should it extend to death itself, it will not be disproportional to its guilt at such a time and in such a cause... for by such conduct they bring shame, disgrace and ruin to themselves and their country."
-- George Washington, charge to the Northern Expeditionary Force, Sept. 14, 1775


I will lose my uber conservative card on this one but torture rarely produces results, especially when you are dealing with extremists who place their cause over their own life. To me it just drags us down to their level.

Beyond that, it's not an effective technique, even if the prisoner talks. The Israelis once followed a policy like ours, using torture on high-value prisoners. Over time, they started extending the range of prisoners they would use it on. The strategy didn't produce good results and in fact often resulted in bad information as prisoners were confessing to things to stop the torture.

The CIA said that it used waterboarding on three high ranking Al Qaeda prisoners, and that those prisoners gave up valuable information after the treatment. Of course, anyone who has studied the CIA knows you can often not take what it says at face value, but I'll assume they're telling the truth. This kind of success can easily lead to a false sense of security, that you can physically coerce truthful information out of subjects. If this had been broadened, they almost certainly would have had problems with bad information coming from prisoners. There simply are more effective interrogation methods to use, and ones that don't have any moral ambiguity around them.

[Smurfy]

I'm starting to wonder how many Americans in these forums hate their constitution and their founding principles more than the Taliban do?

[wco81]

Works for Jack Bauer!

[RobVarak]

Works for Jack Bauer!

Sadly, I've seen more than a few people make that argument without tongue planted in cheek.